Subaru

>>16893765
Nope.
An aluminum I4 would do the same job better.

Engine length. Subaru uses an AWD system which positions the engine very far forward, so a shorter engine basically means less understeer.
Audi uses a similar drivetrain layout, but inline-4, V6 and V8 engines and their one defining handling trait is terminal understeer.

>>16893765
Nope. The low center of gravity is a meme. All they make is econoboxes so it's not like that matters.

>>16893765
stroke length matters.

shape matters if it changes the natural balance

>>16893774
I wouldn't say better. I'd say they're the same, and the only difference is weight.

>>16893765
Engine length and center of gravity

>>16893801
>All they make is econoboxes
Wew lad

File: 1992-acura-vigor-12.jpg (719KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 1600x1066px

>>16893887
Lighter is better.
>>16893787
Engine length is a bullshit excuse.
Pic related is 5cyl fwd

>>16893887
Lighter, simpler, easier to service, less parts to fail, less weight in front of and over the wheels.
Just all around better.

>>16893890
Bullshit meme.

>>16893765
u from el paso?

File: large-14[1].jpg (691KB, 1027x847px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 1027x847px

>>16893895
The Legend and Vigor have a diff next to the oil pan, which means they had to raise the engine and therefore the CoG. Same with Nissan's ATTESA system.
On Subaru's (and Audi's) drivetrains the front driveshafts come straight out the sides of the transmission.

File: enginebay47.jpg (194KB, 1306x980px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1306x980px

>>16893920
So?

File: quattro_cutaway[1].jpg (89KB, 600x424px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 600x424px

>>16893939
Both layouts are compromises, they just compromise on different things.

so you guys like understeer eh

>>16893986
What does understeer have to do with boxer engines?

>>16893909
weight on the wheels is good for a fwd. that's why I won't say one is better than the other.

>>16893989
subaru never managed to put their engines behind the front axle

those overhangs are really triggering

>>16893765
>tubo

Lower center of gravity, shorter/lighter engine when compared to inline variants of the same displacement/cylinder count.

>>16893998
Porsches have their engines behind the rear axle, yet, they have been smoking everything in the past decades.

>>16894047
probably because the engine is behind the REAR axle you dumb retard

File: 17498547_1863730063891188_8888207536903038049_n (1).jpg (56KB, 621x344px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 621x344px

Leaking oil.

>>16894047
Its not lower COG.
Its higher and more spread out than I4 engines.

>>16894047
thats the best place for an engine since acceleration torques the frame sending the already heavy back tires into the ground and you gain grip.

>>16894067
It is.
If the block (which holds the majority of the mass) is lower, then the CoG is also lower.

>>16894047
>they have been smoking everything in the past decades.
Seems like they've been getting finger-banged everywhere they, the corvette and 458/488 Ferrari have met to the point where they are now moving the engine forward on the racing 911 to create an MR.

>>16893801
>The low center of gravity is a meme
If they actually put the engine in the back like a boxer should then it wouldn't be.
But they chose to put it in the front and the car still needs to steer so fuck you logic.

>>16894089
The block isnt lower. I can go out to my forester right now and visibly see how high and spread out it is.
Where as he block in my truck sits FAR lower and more CENTERED in the engine bay

>>16894100
Because a Forester is the same thing as a truck.

>>16894090
They rotated the engine and gearbox around the rear wheels, to create room for the diffuser. The majority of the weight is still at the rear.

>>16894100
I'm talking about the block itself, not where it sits. The block itself has a lower CoG.
Second, the more mass you can keep lower, will make the load spread less and will give better turning capabilities.

http://racingcardynamics.com/weight-transfer/

Also, your comparison makes no sense. Compare a S2000 and a WRX, the WRX doesn't need to have the engine sitting any lower, considering the engine itself already has a lower CoG.

>>16894130
>They rotated the engine and gearbox around the rear wheels, to create room for the diffuser. The majority of the weight is still at the rear.
Semantics. Where is the engine in relation to the transaxle?

File: 20170324_142056.jpg (44KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1080x1080px

>>16894111
An engine in a vehicle isnt the same as an engine in a vehicle
Ok tardo
>>16894130
Are you retarded?
Youre contradicting yourself and all logic.
The horizontal line is NOT lower than the vertical line.
Moron.
The vertical line is more centered AND lower.

>>16894153
It's not as simple as that. The rules demand that the engine stays on the same compartment the roadcar uses. That's why Astons and Vetted are shoving their engines far back, as long as it's still on the same compartment.
Ferrari's have a different gearbox assembly, the engine is closer to the middle of the car on them.

>>16894164
You're comparing a truck to a SUV, man. Come on now.

File: 2011-subaru-forester-powertrain-photo-383761-s-1280x782[1].jpg (91KB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x782px

>>16894164
Except the engine block sits lower, what you're seeing up top is the intake manifold. Not to mention the engine bay of your truck is probably much deeper than that of the Forester, making it appear as if the engine is set lower.

>>16894180
The block is inline with the heads. Its not magically lower. Its high as shit.
>>16894178
What do you want me to compare it to? A miata?
Miata block sits lower and more centered too

>>16894178
>It's not as simple as that. The rules demand that the engine stays on the same compartment the roadcar uses.
I'm not talking about the FIA rules. Is the engine in front of the transxaxle or behind it?
If it's in front, it's a MR car.

File: 2013-subaru-forester-engine-bay[1].jpg (87KB, 799x499px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 799x499px

>>16894191
The top of the block is in line with the top of the transmission, as are the heads. All that shit up top is intake.
Pic related, the heads are buried way in there.

File: images (67).jpg (13KB, 454x324px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 454x324px

>>16894191
Compare pic related with
>>16894180

File: 6fd4f97119118a28d49d529fc5f6e0a2x.jpg (30KB, 590x332px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 590x332px

>>16894208
Youre fucking retarded.
>hey guys did you know a V engine makes your car lean all the time?
>even though it sits LOWER and more centered
>and an I4 makes your car lean the other way

>>16894214
Have you finished college? You talk about concepts you don't fully comprehend.

>>16894212
Oh look. Miata engine is lower and more centered.
Huh... imagine that

>>16894191

The WRX has the intake manifold on TOP of the engine assembly AND a top-mount intercooler. All while the hood of the car is still at the same height as that of a normal compact - you do the math.

>>16894223
We're talking about the CoG, not the crank.

>>16894214
>inline-type has most of engines mass on the right side of the car
>car sags on left

Wat

>>16894243
>which direction is the car cornering?

File: Subaru%20Boxer[1].jpg (526KB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

526KB, 3000x2400px

>>16894223
The Miata's cylinder head sticks up well above the wheels.
In the WRX, the heads are between the wheels and the intake manifold and intercooler stick up where the cylinder head would be on an inline engine.

>>16894232
Yeah. The engine is centered, and not spread out all over the place in front of and over the axles.
Jesus fuck.
>>16894243
Subaru propaganda.
If you want a good laugh, google subaru engine placement

>>16894247
I'm having a good laugh at your posts already.

My family has been driving foresters/outbacks for years. The best thing about the boxer engine is it's stupid easy to work on and hard AF to kill.

File: 1458772970026.jpg (880KB, 1920x1278px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1920x1278px

>>16893765
Yes, low center of gravity and increased wear on the lower part of the piston sleeves. Makes for a nice rebuild in 6 years time, which they know you wont pay for, and will buy another brand new shitbaru

>>16894265
What's that, don't the horizontal heads make them harder to work on than inline or v configuration?

>>16893765
less vibration

>>16894282
only if getting to the gaskets

>>16893765
Boxers are to reciprocating engines as to what rotaries are to combustion engines. Just a meme to stick out from the other, only difference is that Mazda didn't have daddy Toyota's money to pay off all complaints of the engine.

File: 2016-Subaru-BRZ-Series-Hyper-Blue-front-wheels-02.jpg (2MB, 2047x1360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2047x1360px

>>16893765
>Lower COG.
>Takes up less room above and in front of engine.
>Less vibrations.

That's sort of it. I don't like how they limit suspension configurations and need more cams (4cyl), but they have a place in the performance world.

>>16894290
>if
It's a Subaru. You mean when right

>>16894461
Maybe if you're a typical WRX owner, but we've only had a blown head gasket on 1 of 7 foresters/outbacks. Only ever had to scrap them after accidents.

File: tmp_2467-H88-Citroen-SM-Cutaway-Diagram-021769101396.jpg (552KB, 1600x1216px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1600x1216px

>>16893787

Why not just put the engine in the other way?

>>16894478
That'd make AWD really hard, as you'd have to run a driveshaft through (or alongside, or below) the engine.

>>16894478
like a saab 90? because changing the belt sucks

>>16893920

I think old awd BMWs have the same system too.

File: citroen-sm-injection-02[1].jpg (175KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 1024x768px

>>16894503
Yes, except there's a massive clusterfuck of hydraulic lines everywhere and the engine is a V6 nicked from Maserati.

File: 53a04b825afea.jpg (150KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x768px

ITT a bunch of retards that think Subaru is the only manufacturer to use boxer engines.

File: 2ZkbQh6.jpg (85KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 800x532px

>>16894522
said nobody here

>>16894522
>>16894534
rip

>>16894500

Mid engined and even rear engined Porsches have awd, it should be doable.

File: porsche-911-carrera-4s-993-transmission[1].jpg (115KB, 1146x617px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1146x617px

>>16894575
Only rear-engined Porsches have AWD, unless you're talking about the 918 which uses electric motors for the front.
The AWD 911s actually use a drivetrain layout that's very similar to Subaru's/Audi's, but reversed.

File: tmp_2467-scan722561998.jpg (21KB, 480x257px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x257px

>>16894503
>Saab

Ayyyy

>>16894586

Should have said mid engined cars and Porsches. Like the R8.

File: maxresdefault[1].jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>16894610
I think the R8 has a driveshaft running below the engine.

File: 2013-nissan-gt-r,8-V-381343-22[1].jpg (29KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x450px

>>16894617
The most over-complicated way to do an AWD system is probably the R35 GT-R, with the transmission in the back like a Porsche 944 or Corvette, but instead of sending all the power straight to the rear wheels it also has a driveshaft running to the front diff. All in the name of perfect 50/50 weight distribution.

>>16894665
Hardly complicated. They just made the shaft between the engine and the transmission really long.

>>16894684
Probably should've said "inefficient". The power's getting sent all the way to the back, split between axles, then sent all the way to the front again.

>>16894692
Not really any more inefficient than bolting up the transmission and transfer up to the engine.

And it's better for economy than full time AWD with a center differential. If the transfer case is at zero lock the car is purely RWD.

>>16894273
compared to all the forces an engine experiences i think gravity is negligeable

>>16894692
>>16894665
It's not complicated or inefficient, it just triggers autists

>>16894789
Could've at least called me an assmad gm fangirl.

>>16894243
>>16894214
That's referring to torque twist you idiots

File: f29a5d4235b79411a10880d81dca56a24b1a1045e6f086aac792e27770e51d5b.jpg (396KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1536x2048px

>>16894798

>>16894780
Motherfucker you had best be trolling.

>>16893765
Headgasket sales

File: Subaru-AWD.jpg (740KB, 1650x1275px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 1650x1275px

It allows them more room for a good transmission and center differential, thus giving the car fully-mechanical AWD without making the car longer or over-complicating / weakening the AWD system.

Boxers are easier to engineer to avoid penetrating the car's firewall in a crash.

>>16895352
This makes no sensor by itself, a V4 would be the same length.

>>16895932
And be more centered

>>16895939
You again? lol

>>16895932
True, but also consider that flat-4 engines have very good harmonics and don't require a lot of balancing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_balance#Four_cylinder_engines

>>16895956
Huh?

>>16895932
A V4 has balance issues the flat 4 wouldn't.

>>16895932
V4s a shit. only italians and communists use V4s

I don't know if this applies to cars at all but boxer engines in the world of motorcycles are amazing because the horizontal cylinder configuration makes them insanely easy to work on. A full on valve inspection and adjustment can literally be done in under 10 minutes whereas a traditional inline 4 engine would require 2~ hours for an experienced mechanic.

Of course they aren't practical because you don't want two huge jagged pieces of metal sticking out of your motorcycle - but they look cool and are great to wrench on

File: forester2.jpg (187KB, 778x523px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 778x523px

>>16896100
They're worse for cars since the heads are up against the wheel wells. Makes something like changing sparkplugs quite an event.

>>16896116
On most Subarus since ~2004 you don't have to drop/lift the motor to swap plugs anymore.

>>16895932
V4 would have a higher center of gravity compared to a flat-4 and usually needs balance shafts to have an acceptable smoothness for consumer cars.

Along with this, Subaru have been using their flat-4 engines for a very long time, even before AWD became standard on their cars, so they have invested a lot of engineering and R&D into that particular type of engine - it'd be financially stupid to throw all that out and do something else that gives, at best, marginal benefits.

>>16896116
>>16896124
I don't know of any SOHC subaru engines that require moving the engine to get at the spark plugs, on most you can just take out a couple of items in the engine bay (washer fluid bottle, battery) and have easy access to them.

Some of the DOHC ones are a real cunt to do, though. I'm pretty sure the BR-Z/GT86 engine requires lifting to get at them, at least.

>>16896227
Can confirm, single cam Subaru's are piss easy to do plugs on unless the last guy overtightened them and they strip the heads coming out.